1174
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1174 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2265 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Biden is in charge right now, not Harris.
And she explicitly said that she wouldn't change anything
I think she will change things, but can't really speak out like she would probably want being she is Biden's VP. Either way, Trump will only make things worse.
More "progressive" by... giving Putin what he asks for?
If Trump wins, Ukraine can both say goodbye to any support from the US and watch as Trump lifts sanctions against Russia and turns a blind eye to any arms manufacturers that want to make a quick buck by selling to both sides.
Trump doesn't want peace. He's a narcissistic wannabe oligarch who licks the boots and sucks the toes of people he perceives as powerful.
Whatever momentary "peace" comes out of his hypothetical second term is a consequence of dropping any and all support for Ukraine and backing away from defense treaties. He can and will give a plausibly-deniable green light for Russia to do whatever they see fit to "end" the war and annex neighboring countries. That's not peace—that's the setup for decades of violent revolutions with even more violent responses.
Right, so: if I mugged someone and stabbed them, then offered to not stab them again if they let me keep their wallet and threw in their car keys as well, that's peace?
A "deal" suggests there's some sort of consideration for both parties. If the options presented can be boiled down to "give up your land" or "be shelled until we take it from you," that's not a deal—it's a threat.
Furthermore, you're asserting that at least a regional subset of Ukrainians are fascists ("nazis"). That's not a very nuanced stance, and those claims are not authoritative on their own, nor have they come with proof, let alone proof from an unbiased source.
That's a weird way of saying Trump supports Russian imperialism and will encourage genocide in Ukraine in addition to the genocide in Palestine.
No genocide in Ukraine. Liberated regions will stay Russian, no NATO path, neutrality commitment. Can trade with EU/US if it wants, though Russia has expressed resistance to this. Likely referendums for what country oblasts wish to join, though Ukraine would resist this latter point, but just betrays what hated nazis they are in east and Odessa. Peace.
"Liberated regions"
"No NATO"
"What hated nazis they are in east and Odessa"
"Russia is only side in this war that has ever offered reasonable peace"
How many rubles are they paying you to write this? If it's more than zero, they're overpaying. Nothing says subtle social media propaganda campaign like using Russian talking points.
Pro war people do it for love apparently, despite oligarchy profiting extensively and able to pour some trickle down on you, but no one can ever be against the human suffering and economic destruction, just at home, caused by warmongering evil without being paid to not support the demonism.
The United States is fucked up and run by the rich and corporations, that much is obvious to anyone who didn't buy into the "American Dream" lies they try to feed us. But, that's irrelvant to the discussion about Ukraine's existence as a country independent from Russia.
Last I checked, Russia invaded Ukraine and started this whole ordeal. Why should Ukraine be obligated to roll over like a dog, hand over their land and autonomy, and thank their attackers for not subjugating them further? Aren't you against colonialism?
I would assume that Biden has a vested interest in Harris winning. That's why I specified Biden/Harris in my original comment, rather than Harris/Walz.
How is Biden having an interest in Harris winning at all relevant to the powers of the vice president or her actions if she is elected?
Biden and Harris are two completely different individuals, which is a fact that you guys seem to forget.
So which is it? Biden is in charge and isn't changing stance? Or Harris isn't in charge but also isn't signaling a departure from Biden if she is elected?
Either way, neither Biden (who is actually in charge) nor Harris (who isn't in charge) is changing (Biden) or stating an intention to change (Harris) their handling of Israel.
Did you read the rather long text at the top of this thread? It explains all this rather well.
Yes. Fwiw, my first comment here preceded that one.
Edit: also, that comment addresses something different than what we're discussing here. The responses here seem to be fixated on Harris being VP rather than president. The comment you are pointing out discusses Biden's limitations in managing this situation. Different issues, different discussions.
Idk I think Biden might be spiteful enough to want to see Harris fail.